I want to start by thanking Deputies Devine and Carthy for introducing this important Bill. As has been indicated, the Bill seeks to seeks to amend Coco's Law by criminalising the generation of non-consensual intimate images and videos, and also by increasing the maximum penalties on conviction. At present, it is a criminal offence to generate images provided they are then distributed and-or published. I know that the Bill has been introduced in the context of recent public concerns and considerable political debate arising from the launching by X, on Christmas Day 2025, of a feature powered by Grok to allow editing of images. This feature was used at scale to create harmful and illegal content, in particular the nudification of people, including children. I want the House to know that the Government and I share the widespread revulsion at the fact that platforms have allowed the non-consensual nudification of images, primarily of women and children. We also need to recognise that aiding and abetting an indictable serious offence is a criminal offence itself. There is a very strong view that X itself has committed a criminal offence by aiding and abetting the commission of an offence under Coco's Law. Earlier today I brought a memorandum to Government seeking approval not to oppose this Bill and I can confirm that this was endorsed by Cabinet. As the evidence available indicates the generation of non-consensual intimate images disproportionally targets women and children, the policy intention underpinning the Bill aligns with the Government’s commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, which is a priority for me and the Government. Consequently, I will not be opposing the Bill on Second Stage. While there is a comprehensive range of legislation already in place in Ireland to combat these types of harmful digital practices, which I will speak about shortly, I have been examining the extent of the current established legal framework with the Attorney General to ensure it is sufficiently robust to protect people from digital harms like these. Therefore, on the basis of this ongoing review I will not be opposing the Bill on this Stage. I also believe it is fitting that we will be discussing the generation of intimate images using Al tools this evening as today is Safer Internet Day. We know that the use of AI to generate offensive material or to abuse or harass any individual is unacceptable. It represents a very serious violation of privacy and dignity. It promotes a culture of objectification, particularly of women, and disrespect. It is an issue the Government is taking very seriously and is taking concrete steps to address. I welcome the debate today as I am keen to ensure that there are no gaps in the legislation and that the current established legal framework is sufficiently robust to protect people from digital harms. In this context, I would like to give a brief overview of the legislation that already exists in our legal system which is of relevance to today's debate. As has been mentioned, Coco's Law, the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act, was enacted in 2020. It creates a serious offence of distribution or publication of an intimate image without consent with intent to cause harm to the victim, attracting a maximum penalty of up to seven years' imprisonment. It is also an offence to threaten to distribute or publish such an image. The Act also provides for a strict liability offence, with a lower penalty, for engaging in the recording, distribution or publication of an intimate image without consent, with no requirement to prove an intention to cause harm. I would like to add at this point that the definition of an intimate image under the 2020 Act is intentionally broad to include any visual representation of a person. Therefore, it will include an AI-generated image of a person. This will also intimate images which have been altered or doctored prior to their distribution or publication, more commonly referred to as deepfakes. I want to highlight that the Attorney General has confirmed this is indeed the case. The second piece of legislation relevant to the debate this evening is the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998. It is framed so that no distinction can be made between AI-generated material and other child sexual abuse material. The production and distribution of child sexual abuse material attracts a sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment. The creation of an image, whether or not Al tools are used to do so, that shows a child, whether an actual child or one created by Al, engaging in sexually explicit activity or that shows, for a sexual purpose, their genitals or anal region is a serious offence under the Act. It is a criminal offence at present to generate an image of a child. That is relevant in the context of the legislation being proposed this evening by Deputy Devine. Under the Digital Services Act, the European Commission is responsible for the oversight of very large online platforms. These platforms are required to assess and mitigate risks that their services may create in relation to the proliferation of illegal content online and the protection of fundamental rights, including protection for minors. The Artificial Intelligence Act introduces legal requirements that aim to ensure a high level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights against the harmful effects of Al systems in the European Union. Under the Al Act, certain Al practices are prohibited, and certain Al systems and uses of Al by providers and deployers are subject to legal requirements in terms of governance, transparency and responses to risks and incidents. The specific use of Al by deployers is subject to the EU AI Act. A key objective of the regulation is to protect against harmful effects of Al systems in the European Union in terms of health, safety and fundamental rights. While initial phases of the Act, including setting out rules for prohibited Al practices, are now in effect, the provisions to enable surveillance, penalties and enforcement will come into effect in August 2026 and there will be formal regulatory mechanisms available to the relevant surveillance authorities to engage with individual companies There is also the EU violence against women directive. To a large extent, this has already been transposed into Irish law but any further transpositions will be done. It is also important to look at the other consequences in respect of this legislation. I believe that this Bill is well intentioned and I support the general objective but it is my duty to point out some concerns I have in relation to the proposed increased penalties. Without question, it is very important to criminalise harmful behaviours in society to protect citizens and deter wrongdoing. However, it is equally important that criminal laws are fair, proportionate and justly enforced. It would be highly unusual if a five-year prison sentence were to be imposed on a person for creating an intimate image that is never spoken about and is never shared with anyone, including the victim, as could be the case under this Bill. An issue of concern that I would ask Deputies Devine and Carthy to address is that under the Bill as drafted at present, if an individual in the confines of their home decided that they wanted to use an artificial mechanism to create a nude image of me on their computer and then they deleted it - they probably laughed at it - and never sent it anywhere else, under this legislation that person would find themselves having committed an offence which could expose them to a sentence of up to five years imprisonment.

Sentiment score: -0.01

It would. The Attorney General has advised that the proposed increase in the penalty would be a disproportionate penalty for an offence where there is no requirement to prove any criminal intent. The reason we introduced Coco's Law was because images were being created and recorded and then being published and distributed. This was clearly very damaging and upsetting for the individuals concerned. We need to look at the fact that all that is being done by this Act is that the generation of the image would be a criminal offence and there would be no requirement for it to have been distributed it onwards. Such a significant penalty for an offence where there is no requirement to prove any intention to commit a criminal offence could be problematic in the context of Article 38 of the Constitution. As I have said, the Government is taking the issue of online safety very seriously and I have listened with interest to what colleagues have said. I will turn now to the concrete steps that the Government has taken to address the use of Grok. As I indicated earlier, under the Digital Services Act, the European Commission is responsible for oversight. On 26 January 2026 the Commission decided to launch a formal investigation under the Digital Services Act into X and its Grok Al tool. The Government welcomes this decision, and I want to highlight that Coimisiún na Meán is formally involved with the European Commission in this investigation and was instrumental in the work leading up to its launch. In addition, and as suggested by the Al advisory council, the Government is exploring amendments to the Artificial Intelligence Act to expand the list of prohibited Al practices. A lot of work is being done in this area. As I said, I welcome the Bill being introduced by Deputy Devine. I will give it serious consideration and I will work with the Opposition on it.

Sentiment score: -0.02